2025 (7) TMI 870 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe - addition u/s 68 - AO held that the evidences demonstrate that accommodation entry providers have resorted to synchronized trading in shares of various listed companies and ensured to provide accommodation entry of bogus LTCG against cash. HED THAT - As on going through the reasons recorded the Assessment Order and the Ld. CIT(A) order we find no nowhere as to i. What are the accommodation entries received by the assessee? ii. What is the information available with the Assessing Officer? iii. Whether it is payment or receipt by the assessee? iv. What are the entities through which the assessee received the amount or the accommodation entries? v. What is the bank statement from which the amounts/entries have been issued to the assessee? vi. What is the bank statement to which the amounts/entries have been received/deposited by the assessee? vii. Did the Revenue prove primarily the custody of the amount in the accounted or unaccounted books or disclosed or undisclosed bank accounts of the assessee? When we go through the entire gamut of the information received we find that the Revenue Authorities miserably failed to bring even the primary evidences on record. The findings of the search conducted at the premises of Mr. Jignesh Shah and Mr. Sanjay Shah could not be rightly processed by the Assessment Division which led to make loose superstructure devoid of any basement by the AO. AO held that the evidences demonstrate that accommodation entry providers have resorted to synchronized trading in shares of various listed companies and ensured to provide accommodation entry of bogus LTCG against cash. Against these allegations there was no evidence as to what are the companies which were involved in synchronized trading in shares what are the stocks date of operation or manipulation of stocks date of purchase date of sale of stocks. In the absence of any iota of tangible perceptible evidence the lower authorities went on creating a facade to make an addition which cannot be sustained. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

- Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) based on "borrowed satisfaction" arising from search and seizure operations conducted in the cases of third parties, or whether the reassessment should have been initiated under section 153C.

- Whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sections 147 and 144B was valid and in accordance with law.

- Whether treating the return filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 as invalid without issuing a show cause notice under section 139(9) was lawful.

- Whether the assessment order passed without issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was valid.

- Whether the addition of Rs. 2,02,15,000/- under section 69A of the Act was justified given the absence of physical possession of money by the assessee.

- Whether the addition based on unsubstantiated allegations of accommodation entries from entities controlled by third parties was sustainable, especially when the assessee denied any such transactions and the AO failed to identify the source or parties involved.

- Whether the AO violated principles of natural justice by relying on material gathered without providing copies to the assessee or affording opportunity for hearing.

- Whether the show cause notice issued two days before the limitation period expired, with a compliance deadline the next day, constituted a valid notice.

- Whether the assessee was denied opportunity of personal hearing through video conference in violation of section 144B.

- Whether the AO erred in adopting returned income as nil instead of the loss disclosed by the assessee.

- Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the validity of the assessment proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction under Section 147 vs. Section 153C

The AO initiated reassessment under section 147 based on information received from investigation wing regarding accommodation entries allegedly availed by the assessee from entities controlled by Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah, who were subject to search under section 132. The assessee contended that since the material was seized in the third parties' cases, reassessment should have been initiated under section 153C, which governs assessment of persons other than the searched person.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of "borrowed satisfaction" without following the procedural safeguards and requirements of section 153C. The failure to initiate proceedings under the correct provision rendered the reassessment invalid. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional facts and procedural compliance are vital, especially when reassessment is triggered by search and seizure in third-party cases.

Validity of Assessment Order under Sections 143(3), 147, and 144B

The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) read with sections 147 and 144B. The assessee challenged the legality of this order, contending that no notice under section 143(2) was issued after filing a return in response to the notice under section 148, and that the return filed was treated as invalid without issuing a show cause notice under section 139(9).

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to issue a valid notice under section 143(2), which is mandatory before completing assessment under section 143(3). Further, the return filed by the assessee in response to section 148 notice was not invalidated by any show cause notice under section 139(9), which is a prerequisite to treat a return as invalid. This procedural lapse rendered the assessment order bad in law.

Addition under Section 69A and Allegations of Accommodation Entries

The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,02,15,000/- under section 69A, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries from entities controlled by Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah. The AO relied on information received from the investigation wing, search and seizure reports, digital evidence, and admissions by dummy directors of various companies involved in providing accommodation entries.

The assessee denied having received any accommodation entries and requested the AO to provide details such as names of parties, bank statements, seized material copies, and statements of the third parties to substantiate the allegations. The AO failed to provide such details. The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) did not produce any primary evidence or identify specific transactions, parties, or bank accounts linking the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries. The findings were based on vague and generalized information without tangible proof.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on the search material and investigation reports without furnishing copies or providing opportunity to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The addition was held to be unsustainable due to lack of concrete evidence and failure to establish the link between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entries.

Principles of Natural Justice and Opportunity of Hearing

The assessee contended that the AO relied on material gathered behind its back without providing copies or adequate opportunity to respond. Additionally, the show cause notice proposing variation in income was issued on 29.03.2022 with a compliance deadline on 30.03.2022, effectively denying reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee also claimed denial of personal hearing through video conference as mandated by section 144B.

The Tribunal held that such conduct violated the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The short notice period and failure to provide hearing opportunity rendered the assessment proceedings flawed. The absence of personal hearing through video conference further compounded the procedural irregularities.

Onus of Proof and Evidentiary Requirements

The Tribunal referred to the precedent that the onus of proving the source of unexplained money or entries lies on the assessee. However, where the revenue fails to produce satisfactory evidence to establish the nature, source, or receipt of such sums, the addition cannot be sustained. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to prove custody of the amount in the assessee's books or bank accounts, or to establish any transaction with the entities controlled by the third parties.

The Tribunal emphasized that mere reliance on search material and generalized allegations without specific evidence does not suffice to make additions.

CIT(A)'s Failure to Adjudicate Validity of Assessment

The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings before the CIT(A), but the appellate authority did not adjudicate this legal issue and upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal found this omission to be an error and noted that the validity of assessment proceedings is a fundamental issue that must be addressed in appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The findings of the search conducted at the premises of Mr. Jignesh Shah and Mr. Sanjay Shah could not be rightly processed by the Assessment Division, which led to make loose superstructure devoid of any basement by the Assessing Officer."

"In the absence of any iota of tangible, perceptible evidence, the lower authorities went on creating a facade to make an addition which cannot be sustained."

"The Revenue Authorities miserably failed to bring even the primary evidences on record."

"The addition made by the Assessing Officer without serving upon the appellant assessee a notice u/s. 143(2) is bad in law and is liable to be quashed."

"The impugned addition that has been made in clear violation of principle of natural justice may therefore please be deleted."

The Tribunal established the core principles that reassessment proceedings must comply with jurisdictional and procedural requirements, including issuance of proper notices and adherence to principles of natural justice. It held that additions based on vague allegations and unsubstantiated material seized from third parties without furnishing particulars or opportunity to the assessee cannot be sustained.

The final determination was to allow the appeal, quash the reassessment, and delete the addition of Rs. 2,02,15,000/-, as the revenue failed to establish the claim with cogent evidence and violated procedural safeguards.